Re: Kacc 10 revisited

It is true that Vararuci uses 'upari' and 'adho' to refer to the first and second
consonants in a cluster.  It is also true that in some Indian orthographies, consonant
clusters are written vertically.  Whether or how these two facts are related is, however, a
matter of speculation.  One might imagine, if Vararuci composed in an oral context, that
the terminology influenced the development of orthography, rather than the reverse.
The rules of Vararuci (3.1 and 3.2 in Cowell's edition) explicitly concern consonant
clusters and what happens to them when Sanskrit is 'Prakritized'.  They are neither sandhi
rules nor orthographic instruction.  Kaccaayana (and the other Pali grammarians), did not
compose such 'transfer grammars', but rather tried to treat Pali as an independent
language.  Though Kaccaayana is surely later than Vararuci, there is no obvious reason to
think that he borrowed this terminology.
Ole:
<< In the commentary adho "below" contrasts with upari "above." The same distinction is
found in Vararuci´s prakrit grammar. It is really very simple. Tatra, for instance is written
ta + tr + a. r is written below t and is therefore adho. A is implied when writing the
conjunct tr. When adding tatra to ayam one disjoins the a of tatra and joins it with the
following a of ayam above the line to yield tatraayam. The treatment of conjuncts in
Vararuci´s grammar is the same. The first rule of chapter III, for instance, historical k in
the conjunct bhattam < bhaktam is described as above(upari), elided, and the following t
as doubled. In the case of sossam < sushma the letter below (adho) m is elided. This
distinction would seem to be strange to people who do not write conjuncts one on top of
the other but horizontally. >>?
Considerations:
(i)  In a given orthography, a cluster like 'tr' is written (vertically or horizontally) in exactly
the same way whether its vowel is affected by sandhi or not.  Why does the sutta specify
'adho'?
(ii)  Conversely, sandhi affects vowels in exactly the same way when preceded by single
consonants as when preceded by clusters.  (Jim's point, I think.)
(iii)  How can a statement which refers to something not orthographically present (the
inherent 'a') be an orthographic statement?
(iv)  'Viyoga' cannot refer to orthographic separation.  In Indian orthographies, a vowel
which is separated from a preceding consonant is written either with a separate letter (one
for each vowel) or by the letter for initial a with the corresponding diacritic form of the
vowel.
I do not agree that the orthographic interpretation of Kacc 10 is 'very simple' or
'makes sense'.  Rather it seems as contrived as anything in the dustbin.

George Bedell